Ex Parte Gu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2010

10447862 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD YU GU, HARMEEK SINGH BEDI,
and ASHISH THUSOO
____________

Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 27, 2010
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-39. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862

2
INVENTION
The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
[0023] A merge operation is a data manipulation
operation that refers to a process where two sets of data are
compared and possibly combined. If the result of the
comparison is that the two sets of data are equivalent, then the
result of the data manipulation operation may be that neither set
of data is modified. If a difference is determined, then the
result of the operation may be that one set of data is modified
based on the other set of data. In the context of database
operations, each merge includes identifying differences
between data from the source data stream and data from one of
the destination data structures, and then modifying that
destination data structure based on the identified differences, if
any. Examples of merge operations (or other data manipulation
operations) in SQL include UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE and
MERGE. Throughout much of this application, the specific
data manipulation operation discussed is MERGE.
[0024] Embodiments described herein provide for
performing multiple merge operations to integrate data from a
source data structure with one or more destination data
structures. Only one scan of the source data structure is
necessary to obtain the source data for performing all of the
merge operations. Embodiments such as described herein
conserve substantial processing resources and time by enabling
multiple-merge operations to be performed using only a single
scan of the source data structure.
(Sub. Spec. 6.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method of combining data, the method comprising:
receiving at a database server a database command that
conforms to a database language and that includes a merge
operator, wherein the database command includes, as operands
Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862

3
for said merge operator, operands that specify a source data
structure and a plurality of destination data structures;
executing, within the database server the database
command wherein the execution of the database command
includes performing the steps of:
performing a plurality of merge operations using a
single scan of a source data structure, wherein each
merge operation is an operation to merge data from the
source data structure into a different one of a plurality of
destination data structures;
wherein each of the source data structure and the
destination data structures is a relational data structure;
and
wherein each of the merge operations includes
identifying whether any differences exist between data
from the source data structure and data from that
destination data structure, and modifying data from that
destination data structure based on any identified
differences.

PRIOR ART
Huang US 6,493,727 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Tse US 6,895,471 B1 May 17, 2005
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA").

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13, 19-31, and 38-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAPA and Tse.

Claims 14-18 and 32-37 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Tse, and Huang.
Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862

4
ISSUE
The Examiner makes the following admission.
AAPA . . . does not explicitly teach[ ] the step of,
"receiving at a database server a database command that
conforms to a database language and that includes a merge
operator wherein the database command includes as
operands for said merge operator, operands that specify a
source data structure and a plurality of destination data
structures" . . . .
(Ans. 29.) He makes, however, the following findings.
In this embodiment, the dimension table and the fact
table are both updated in a single pass through a data transport
pipeline (Tse Col 4, Lines 46-54).
Examiner interprets a single scan as reading from the
source only once and plurality of destinations are equivalent
with Tse's dimension table and second target table. Therefore,
the reference teaches a single merge operator and the source
data is being merged/updated into the plurality of destinations
(e.g. dimension table and a second target table) in a single pass
without rescanning the source data.
(Id. at 29-30.) The Appellants argue that "even if AAPA and Tse were
combined, the combination fails to teach or suggest the recited merge
operator." (Supp. App. Br. 9.) Therefore, the issue before us is whether the
Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Tse teaches a
single merge operator with merge operands that specify plural destination
data structures.

LAW
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862

5
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell,
991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051 (CCPA 1976)).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Tse discloses "[a] method and apparatus for processing (transporting)
data, such as in a data warehouse system." (Abstract, ll. 1-2.) The specific
paragraph of the reference cited by the Examiner follows.
In another data warehousing embodiment, the operational
data are read from the source only once in order to update the
dimension table and a second target table (e.g., a fact table). As
above, the dynamic lookup cache remains synchronized with
the dimension table and thus does not need to be rebuilt. In this
embodiment, the dimension table and the fact table are both
updated in a single pass through a data transport pipeline,
further increasing the efficiency and throughput of the data
warehousing application.
(Col. 4, ll. 46-54.)

ANALYSIS
Tse transports data in a data warehouse system. We agree with the
Examiner that the paragraph of the reference on which he relies teaches
performing a single scan by reading from the source only once and teaches a
Appeal 2009-004162
Application 10/447,862

6
plurality of destinations, viz., a dimension table and a fact table. Like the
Appellants, however, we "disagree with th[e] [Examiner's] unwarranted
logical leap from a single scan of a source to the [claimed] merge operator."
(Supp. Appeal Br. 9.) As noted by the Appellants, "Tse fails to even
mention 'commands' or 'operators.'" (Id.) Therefore, the Examiner has
failed to show that the reference "teach[es] or [would have] suggest[ed] the
recited merger operator, i.e., an operator with operands that specify a
plurality of destination data structures." (Id.)

CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Tse teaches a
single merge operator with merge operands that specify plural destination
data structures.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-39.

REVERSED

rwk

HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 550
SAN JOSE CA 95110-1083